Mapping stories through multiple disasters: Secondary qualitative analysis of a cartographic storytelling resource

Le résumé fourni par la source

: Cascading, compounding and recurring disasters can affect diverse people and places. However, there has been limited research into how experiences from one disaster may shape an individual’s future behaviors and expectations, or the ways in which knowledge sharing may be occurring between communities and government agencies from one disaster to the next. This study utilises a new cartographic storytelling resource, the HowWeSurvive (HWS) Map, as a source of large-scale secondary qualitative dataset to assess knowledge sharing practices in Australia among individuals who report multiple disaster experiences across their lifetime. From 855 qualitative datapoints available at the time of analysis, 182 explicitly referenced experiences of multiple disasters and were included for thematic analysis. Across this data, which spans over 20 years and all states and territories in Australia, key issues were identified repeatedly. There was rich local and First Nations knowledge gained through multiple disaster experiences across the life course and through intergenerational practices. However, individuals felt ignored or selectively listened to by government authorities, despite their depth of knowledge. These findings demonstrate that community disaster knowledge is relational and cumulative, evolving through repeated events. Individuals referred to an intrinsic connection with others and the environment. This paper makes the case that there is a critical gap in current disaster risk reduction (DRR) approaches, which often fail to recognise the importance of relationality and to integrate local and First Nations expertise across multiple disasters. Addressing this gap is essential for developing more effective, contextual, respectful DRR strategies in an era of increasingly complex and interconnected climate risks.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.